Trooth

Yeah but that argument is utter bunk. It is based on an irrationality and only works if you stick more irrationality on top.

Those two options: one is a crane the other a sky hook. The "complete solution" of a sky hook is based upon irrational thought (God gave morality) is being compared to a crane (animal-> big brain -> civilisation).

The sky hook starts from the end point "conclusion is there must be a god" and works back. Clearly since the sky hook starts out being "fully formed" it has more "answers" than a competing theory which is being built from the ground up.

Compare it to building this here tower as a representation of human knowledge.



God = Laws = Sky Hook
The pinnacle at the top of the pyramid could be thought of as the "answer to everything". So to build this building the irrational mind would hang the pyramid from the sky using their sky hook of knowing the answer to everything and would then continue to build downwards filling in the gaps by interptreting their mysticism in various ways to explain the different problems and phenomena they encounter until they reach the ground (at which point it apparently rips assunder and we all die fiery deaths but that is a different set of irrationality).

Learning as we go means we don't have all the answers = crane
The rational mind starts with the foundations (slowly, learning to bang rocks together to make fire et al). Gradually builds up the floors by using the crane of learning to communicate, by learning about the world around the tower, about wind, rain, seasons etc, learning to work together, learning to form societies that don't spend all time killing each other makes it quicker to build buildings, for example). Technological advancements mean that the tower is quicker to build the higher it goes until you get to the pyramid which is the final icing on the cake of our knowledge which converge onto a point where, one day, just maybe one day, we actually discover that someone else has built a bigger building which has answered more questions.

So, back on topic. God (who is a despot by nature) has political parties. He has his Christian Party, his Mulsim Party, Hindu coalition etc. And within each are the extremists and the moderates.

So, why not just hand the political processes over to the church?

__________________
The world as it should be at surrealscoop.blogspot.com

ExNavyAmerican

That's pre-supposing that religion is irrational. Atheism is as religious as Christianity because of your belief that there is no god/gods. Citing, therefore, conviction, as opposed to proof.

The original Roman law was based on tradition according to religion. English Common law also started on the basis of religion (i.e. “dos” and don’ts”) The legal system that dominates the better part of the world is based on irrational thought, according to you. Let alone other religious-based legal systems.

The conclusion is that there is a god/gods, based on the evidence of one's existence (i.e. creation), and the quest to do this god's will as he's obviously very powerful. Simplistic reasoning that ultimately arrives at the logical conclusion. So much for evolution.

Your "crane" theory has never been observed; ie no civilization has ever begun atheistic and evolved without any influence from religion, therefore you can't prove inherent tendencies toward civilization within mankind. The conclusion is that your theory is a "sky hook" based purely on your atheistic beliefs.

That's from a deistic perspective. I don't believe all religions worship one God. I believe mine, Jehovah, the God of Israel, is the one true God. Period. But that's another story.

I agree. God wields absolute authority. But, since He's GOD, we can trust Him to wield it justly and wisely. We're not talking about Hitler, FDR, or Blair; we're talking about the (hypothetical from your perspective, undisputed fact from mine) Creator of the universe.

History has proven that government must stay independent from an established church because man will corrupt both using the each against each other. However, history has also proven a positive affect of just religions on government. Not a church state; a moral influence with, as James Madison said, "a modest barrier" between church and state.

Your “crane vs. skyhook” argument never really answered the question as to why those things which society considers wrong are actually wrong.


First off, what you just said is according to a deistic perspective. As I'm a Christian, I believe in Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel. I don't believe that Islam has any basis in fact, and I believe pantheism (i.e. Hinduism) is even further from the truth. In other words, Christians worship God (whether or not Jews do is a subject of debate); everyone else worships idols. This belief is considered non-conformist, intolerant, and primitive. There are those who say it won't work in our society, however, they'll just have to live with it as I'm entitled to my religious beliefs -unless the people want to show themselves as the fascists they really are.

__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
- Thomas Jefferson

glyn

[quote=ExNavyAmerican;414818]
however, they'll just have to live with it as I'm entitled to my religious beliefs -unless the people want to show themselves as the fascists they really are.

Perhaps you might like to expand on this statement ENA?

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

astralis

ENA,

that we have monsters within our midst, such as hitler et al, whom could lead a traditionally very civilized people (the germans, the heart of enlightenment thinking) into doing horrendous deeds, shows that civilization is a veneer. take the southern slaveholders for instance: many of them were no doubt very good christians, but had no compunction about a system which encouraged brutalizing an entire people.

civilization and rule of law was inspired mainly because as people began to congregate in ever larger cities, a form of organization had to be created lest humanity- at heart, a very tribal-based animal- could deal with other humans without resorting to grabbing the nearest spear.

besides, didn't you call atheism a form of religion? if such is the case, i suppose the "god" here would be one's fellow man.

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Trooth

My view is that religion is indeed irrational. Faith, as offered by those that have faith, is founded on that irrationality. It's strength comes from its unprovability. Which is more irrationality on top of the irrational.

Certainly some atheists demonstrate religious tendancies. So do some Apple Mac users.

Not just according to me, important though i am, but very definitely based on irrational thoughts. You can arrive at the right answer through the wrong method. You can create a model that fits the observed facts closely and be wrong.

I hazard a guess that you do not subscribe to Zeus and the posse on Mount Olympus. Very defintely Zeus would smite those who behaved badly. Very defintely the mere mortals feared Zeus and tried to live appropriately, by both our judgements this is flawed behaviour (there was no Zeus) however both would agree that their desire to behave "correctly" was the right thing to do.

The fact we are here does not prove there is a God. It does not prove evolution, it does not prove the big bang. Assuming we set aside whether or not we really are here, all it proves is that a universe like the one we live in is capable of supporting that which we are. It proves that we can live in an environment where the gravitational constant is 6.7x10^-11 m^3 kg^-1^s-2 and where light travels at 299,792,458 m/s and a host of other physical constants at their appropriate values.

It doesn't, for example, prove that we could not live in a universe with a higher G or a lower c. It does not prove that G, c et al were arrived at through successive big bangs in self destructing universes until one was created with stability, nor does it disprove it. Likewise it neither proves nor disproves an old man with a bushy beard chewing his celestial pencil, and turning the celestial dials for each constant until G, c and the rest matched the requirements for our universe to be stable.

We are here but that makes no claim to anything else.

I don't have an atheistic belief in the manner which you are (completely understandably) using the word belief. I am keen to discover our world. I accept that there is most that i do not know about it.

Both of us are pottering through our lives wondering. The difference is you are starting with the solution ("God") and making the observed world fit into your belief. Hence to build the metaphorical building you are starting from the pinnacle (the ultimate answer) and working back. But you can only do that using a sky hook (God) from which to hang all other things.

My cranes include religion as part of the bulding process of understanding our world.

The elements were clearly under the influence of Gods who were powerful and we should try to do their will, otherwise the volcano god might bring forth fire and brimstone, or perhaps Poseidon might flood the land and smash our ships in a terrible storm.

But perhaps there are other explanations that the crane of discovery lifts us up towards.

When the world was clearly flat, the earth clearly immobile, the sun clearly moving around it, then clearly we were special, inherently we must be chosen since we demonstrably had dominion of the Earth, this central orb within God's fermament. The crane of discovery lifted us up from that.

Well Jaweh was a tyrant and despot, encouraging absolute and utter obedience in the letter of everything he said. Like many despots he wasn't consistent with his teachings, he took Moses' ire fuelled toy throwing as an opportunity for revision, for example. Like many thrusting young bucks he mellowed when he had a child and the New Testament is much gentler and hence offers another set of inconsistencies.

If you are going to offer the phrase undisputed fact you can only do it whilst hanging from your sky hook.

If you offer that man corrupts religion (which i agree) then faith in God can only extend as far as creator, since all knowledge of God, all teaching, has come through man.

Experience. People developed rules and created society. Undoubtedly religion served a purpose, but as i said you can get to the right result through the wrong means. The fact that the people of the time saw that a religious model fitted neatly into their observable world was as much an indicator of their limits as much as it was an indicator of the positive nature of religion.

To this day there are text books that describe a wing as creating lift due to the separation of air at the leading edge and a race over two different distances to the trailing edge, causing a lower pressure on the top surface. This is not how lift is created, but the model works for people whose viewpoints are limited to a single cause and whose physical understanding includes Bernoulli's principle.

When i was at school doing early chemistry i was told that electrons orbited the nucleus in fixed orbits and "virtual shells" in neat regiments of 2, 8, 8 etc (can't remember) electrons. In later years I learned about delocalised clouds, spin pairs. The early simplification was a crane to help me learn about the atom. The principles it taught me were right but were arrived at through flawed reasoning.

You are indeed entitled to your religious beliefs. Beliefs being the operative word despite your assertion of fact.

I would maintain that religion's time has gone and instead say that there is a place for faith. Religion guidance for helping us live our lives has passed. Faith may help man's limited (but widening) view of the universe explain the ultimate question and make us sleep better at night.

The human condition is well enough observed, documented and studied to mean we do not need superstitious explanations for physical events.

It is bad luck to walk under a ladder - why? Because if someone up it drops something it will hit the person walking under, not around, the ladder. Oddly superstition (being old) has no similar mantra for scaffolding, where the opposite "rules" apply.

ExNavyAmerican

The BELIEF that there is no god/gods is religious in and of itself.

Not irrational thought, on mere subjective thought. All religion is subjective.

And what method do you propose for arriving at the standards of civilizarion that religions has built for us.

Basically. The dos and don'ts that are still prevailent in our societies began in the very earliest of times by trying to please God.

I'm not saying it does or doesn't prove the existence or nonexistence of God. Though it certainly proves one of three things: we've always been here (scientifically impossible); Someone all-powerful made us (possible as He'd transcend natural laws as they are His creation); we're here by accident (i.e. big bang, evolution). To the ancients, it was proof of God.

It proves one of the three things above -unless you think that we're all just imagaining we're here.

So am I keen on discovering the secrets of our world; it's not exclusive to (as I'm presuming you are) an agnostic. If you are indeed an atheist, you believe there's no god, based on no proof whatsoever, and therefore are religious, though not in the same sense as other religions. Atheism is the dogma without the moral code.

The conclusion is not that there's a god; the conclusion is that there is creation. God is the only sensible answer, imo.

If religions are part of the building process, they're the foundation.

Perhaps. It's all religious. I believe that the crane will lift us to greater understanding of God and His creation

That's science, not religion. Religion is independent of Science. Science has not disproven religion, and probably never will because these gods of these religions would transcend science -by the very definition of the term "god".

"Jaweh" is not the same as "Jehovah".

Second of all, all events of judgement disclosed in the Old Testament were God's justice. And again, as He's God, His judgement equates justice. Even from an atheistic hypothetical perspective, God would be perfect, therefore would be just.

Lastly, the difference in the New Testament is not God mellowing. It depends on who you talk to, but as I believe in the Trinity, I belive that the Father has not mellowed, the Son is the mediator between the Father and creation. There are three distinct personalities, though two are at the center. The Father's is primarily represented in the Old Testament, the Son's is primarily represented in the New. But that's another story.

The interpretation of what is crane vs. skyhook would differ from person to person. It's subjective philosophy. But a good analogy, I'll give you that -so long as we realize the subjectiveness of it.

First of all, all teaching of God does not come through man; from a Christian perspective, the Bible says that the prophets and apostles were told what to say through the Holy Spirit.

Secondly, I said that man corrupts religion through government. Though man eventually becomes apostate, there are always those ready to preserve. The church-state set up is also disliked by me because of my belief in the Local Chuch.

People developed rules and created orderly society because of religion. These religious laws (or more appropriately rules) pre-dated the first organized society.

As I said, your implication that religion is the wrong method is pre-supposing that religion is the wrong method. In other words, you're stating it as a fact when it's still philosophy. And the facts disagree: we have advanced, orerly civilization There's never been an Atheistic example. So far, religion has fueled civilization to a good end.

Science is not religion. They're apples and oranges. Science has not produced any proof, or actual evidence (the big bang is nearly mythological) as to why we're here. Religion has. Therefore, it's more sensible to rely on religion then science as to answers in that regard. I observe creation; realize that it must have been born one way or the other; I see evolution, including its many holes; I see the complexity of life, and reason tells me that it cannot possibly be the result of random chance. I see the Bible; it fits my conclusions about nature (i.e. constant praise of God because of "the works of His hands"), and I think that the Biblical explanation best suits the facts.

I said that they were fact from my perspective. I also said we were speaking hypothetically from yours. I realize that its based completely on faith, but because of that strong faith I believe it's fact. But I realize that the operative word is "belief". I'm not the one who needs lecturing on the meaning of faith and religion: you need to realize that Atheism isn't the result of scientific enlightenment; it's the result of men not wanting to believe that there is someone supernatural calling the shots. From my perspective, it's rebellion.

Relgion's time obviously has not gone because we'll never disprove the existence of God, and certainly haven't how. Not to mention that the better part of the world is religious. According to those billions, religion's time is still here. You can pretend that you're in the majority and one of the more "enlightened" human beings, but that supposed "enlightenment" is based on the same principle that makes you think religious people are more primitive: i.e. faith. Faith that there's no god.

Indeed it is not. There is no proof or overwhelming evidence either way. You're trying to make religion appear irrational and/or primitive because of its ancient connotations. While trying to make Atheism appear rational because it is new, therefor "progressive". Man is not sophisticated enough to prove where we come from. That belief is pure fantasy because science has, again, not offered any explanations.

Superstition does not base itself in right or wrong: it bases itself in luck, and/or that it is better for the sake of good luck to do certain things. Religion is not necessarily superstition; it's based on morality for the sake of morality.

ExNavyAmerican

What I meant is that there are those who disagree absolutely with the belief that that some hold that their god is the only god. Period. A lot of those people (not all) would have that belief be termed as hate, and intolerant, and essentially banned for, and I've heard it said this way, "the good of the human race".

That's a fascist belief.

We have monsters in our midst indeed. Did you know that Hiter, Stalin, Lenin, Marx, and Mao were all Atheists? And Hitler's motive was to expand Atheism and forward human evolution?

You see we crash, and I've already discussed whether or not man is an animal. You're right that civilization began when man started congregating in cities due to a success in farming, thereby able to support a non-farming population. The laws that guided these complex societie were older than civilization, and were brought about by religion. If man is just an animal, we would not have these laws. And we certainly would not have established them without outside influence. We would not "civilize" ourselves by making these laws for an orderly society if we were animals. The very argument is completely idiotic!

No. That's Humanism. Atheism is simply the belief that there is no god -though an Atheist may very well be a Humanist as well.

ExNavyAmerican

Reestablishing the thread

I don't mind discussing religion, and want to continue the disucssion. But I'l just post something about parties to get a second line of discussion that's more on topic.

I already said that political parties develop whether or not you want them. The first parties in the US were the Federalist and the Democraric-Republican, also called the Jeffersonian Republican:

The Republicans were against Hamilton's drive toward urbanization, modernization, and his methods for reestablishing the treasury and our international credit. They were for a simple agrarian society. They also supported France in the French revolution to the point that they were prepared to declare war on Britain.

The Federalists were of course supportive of Hamilton's methods, were for urbanization, supported the national bank, and were behind an enlarged central government. They also favored Britain in the French Revolution, but were for a policy of neutrality.

The instigators of the two parties -Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, respectively -were dead-set against political parties and were dismayed at their formation: it was the natural order of things. Even Washington, who refused to support either camp, sympathized more with the Federalists and is sometimes described as such. In his farewell address, he went so far as to hint disfavor against Jefferson and his republicans.

Though this proves a natural tendencies for complex societies to become partisan, it does not justify the concept of party nomination and ballot access laws. It does not justify the treason and corruption bred there. Do away with them. Political caucuses are one thing. But do away with the parties that sponsor campaigns for a select few candidates, and whose primary interest is putting those candidates in office. Though the candidates interest is indeed, originally, to do his country some good, he becomes corrupted and tied to his party.

Rove once told Tancredo that the latter was a traitor to the party, and to not blacken the steps of the White House.

You see? They're dangerous.

Trooth

Indeed, but that is not what i am trying to do. I am looking at the world and trying to work out how it works. For example, the wing fallacy i stated earlier was something i "believed". I thought about it and decided "how does the air know to catch up" and so went and did more research, found more answers and changed my "belief".

As you said later, and i thoroughly support, Religion is definitely one, possibly the foundation of modern civilisations, that people accepted the religion because it said things that made their lives sustainable (lets not kill and steal). However my opinion that a good solution was arrived at by a flawed model.

Indeed. So to do the sacrifices that take place even to this day.

I must admit i thought you did say that. Whilst i would agree with your 3 things i would say "chance" rather than "accident" and has to be thought of in the context of the huge amounts of time and number of tries that are possible within it. Think of flipping a coin and that if you had enough tries it would land on its edge occasionally.

Blimey, you are insightful! Seriously, this was one of my childhood ruminations!

I am certainly agnostic in that i fully accept that my knowledge is limited. However from my knowledge, what i can read etc i am tending to the Atheist in that it fits the patterns better. However the "i don't know" is still present and, in all likelihood, always will be.

It is certainly an answer. This is were we very definitely depart.

Totally agree. Indeed i think we would both say that is irrefutable.

In my world view i stop at the word "understanding" and see where that takes me.

It shows how planes can fly but people not know how they work. But again you are assuming the answer and its chracteristics and then by that definition saying it is unknowable. I could define wood as chocolate. Wouldn't make my table taste any better.

It is only subjective if you define the answer before you start. If you do not then the sky-hook does not exist. It doesn't mean that the outcome has to be different (it could still be a supernatural entity) but we would have to arrive at it, not start with it.

Aren't we back to defining the answer again? Isn't that like saying "The bible may appear in error, but its veracity is guaranteed by a supernatural entity." which is my basis for usage of the word irrational.

I see no reason for government to be different to any other facet of human behaviour. Stick people in power and it gets abused. Let people make rules and they feather their own nests. Society is full of men in some sort of uniform that think they are powerful. I see no difference in religion.

Not sure about that. Before we could communicate we must have lived together. Cave paintings show everyday life in tribes.

I agree on all counts except that i am pre-supposing it. I am saying its time has past as it is a flawed model.

What if it were discovered that the Earth is not immobile? The passage in the Bible that states it is would need, at best, re-interpretation (more corruption?)

I am indeed speaking hypothetically. So are you, but you have declared your theory proven.

I don't believe i am in the majority (although any particular relgiious concensus is a minority too). I don't believe i am enlightened, although i do believe i am educated, which a great many of those billions are not.

It doesn't have to be science that offers the explanations. But it is sciencific method that has provided tests that work well in every other field of human endeavour. Religion is irrational - the idea that the lack of evidence makes the proof (faith) stronger, is surely irrational. Religion is old and is primitive. Without a doubt the people that were initially writing the teachings understood human nature and has made it enduring.

The human race is a young species and that we have come so far in such a short time. That we still hang onto primitive superstitions is no surprise. Whether or not we wish to continue to base our laws on faith / irrationality (delete as applicable) is the question.

Not necessarily. A great many superstitions have basis in reason. Misfortune can befall you if you walk under a ladder, but only in the area of the ladder. If you trip over the kerb a mile away that is unconnected. and is irrational to believe otherwise.

I msut add i am finding this a thoroughly entertaining exchange of views, excellent work ENA.

Trooth

Hitler was a catholic. His desire was to stop human evolution (almost literally) by ensuring the "purity" of bloodlines. Hitler's attendance at church stopped when he was only a few stops away from being elevated to deity level in what was rapidly becoming his own religion, Nazism.